Washington Village plan redux

Ryan Morgan

Posted:
01/22/2008 12:00:00 AM MST

Updated:
08/16/2009 03:29:51 PM MDT

The beginning of a new beginning for the former Washington Elementary School could be forged tonight.

The Boulder City Council's meeting will be dominated by discussion over how to proceed on a proposal to turn the former school into single-family homes, condos, co-housing and commercial space -- a plan neighbors have bitterly opposed.

Ruth McHeyser, Boulder's acting planning director, said one important task for the council tonight will be to start the discussion of what the scope of that committee should be.For example, some opponents have said Boulder Valley School District officials should revisit their decision to close and sell the school in the first place. Leach, the developer, has said the discussion should start by assuming development will happen.

"We're asking the council to determine what should be on the table, and what should be off the table," McHeyser said.

That decision may not happen tonight. Instead, the council could appoint an interim committee to design the process an ad hoc committee would follow. While Leach has said he'd like to have his plan reviewed by April, McHeyser said the process will probably take longer.

Leach landed the project after going through a city-initiated process aimed at reaping "community benefit" from the project, in the form of public meeting space and other amenities. The City Council will also be asked to consider whether to make some of those requirements more flexible, McHeyser said.

Advertisement

John Gless, a spokesman for neighbors who oppose the project, said it doesn't make sense to hash out plan details if it doesn't result in concrete changes to a development that neighbors say is too big, too dense and out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.

"If we're going to do this, and if it's going to change form, we would like it to change form in some meaningful way," he said. "If it's basically the same except it respects the current zoning, there's really no point in having a process."

At the end of the day, Leach has the right to submit any plan that fits within the zoning. And city officials would be obligated to approve such a plan -- but the question of what fits zoning is subjective.

Leach said he wants to get as many neighbors to support his project as he can -- and to win support from the City Council.

"We want a project that can move ahead and has at least a semblance of some support from the public," he said.

But, he said, the constraints under which he's working -- trying to build a co-housing community and needing to make the project work financially to justify the school district's $4 million asking price -- make drastic changes to the site plan unlikely. If constraints don't change significantly, he said, it will be nearly impossible for the plan itself to change.

"We're willing to modify it and look at the impacts on neighbors and the neighborhood as a whole, but anything you do is still going to involve some impact there," he said. "I'm not sure there is another way to develop it that would have less impact and still work for the site."

Speculating -- but of course -- as to the reason 9,000 people put their sig on a petition, I'd submit it was more a sense of outrage than anything --

here's a beautiful historic school building that ought to be put to SOME significant community use --

in NYC there are several converted schools and other types of public building that have dramatic and extraordinary impact on their neighborhoods by offering things as simple as ...remedial reading programs for young children -- or music, theater or dramatic arts after-school programs --

these institutions have names like The Hudson Guild and Henry Street Settlement --

I have been at numerous city council meetings over the years where there was some type of discussion resulting in consensus that the city must DO MORE for young people -- and after-school programs carried out at a commuter-distance from home are a disincentive for kids -- a disincentive for kids and parents as well

why is it so very, very hard for members of this city council to say -- "here's an opportunity" --

there are plenty of locations on the map for co-housing -- there are very few if any buildings of significant historic and architectural merit in north Boulder that would outrank the Washington school as a potential community resource center for young people --

furthermore, the city has an "economic vitality" program -- the import of which is something along the lines of keeping working families in Boulder --

well, one way to ACTUALLY do that is provide community resources that working families can really use -- the million or so the city tosses to companies like Ball and IBM -- companies that actually could care less by the way, if you look at their spreadsheets -- could easily pay off a 40 year 'mortgage' on the Wash property --

and the BVSD could redeem itself by partnering in a community resource center, perhaps take a break from explaining why they need to extract the maximum amount of dollars from facilities paid for by residents of Boulder across the span of a century --

I think people need to wake up -- it's a loss to do things that aren't in the best interests of the community, and those council members who strictly advocate moving forward with housing development at that site (ostensibly because it means improved density along a transit corridor -- yeesh!) are really doing a disservice --

we ought to hear some researched ideas that make sense from a more global and humane perspective --

creating humane institutions should not be -- at the outset -- the very last thing we consider

with the 'transit village' and other projects, the city is adding lots of new "housing units" -- the loss of significant public space to accommodate a profit-oriented dream of adding more is inappropriately embraced as some sort of 'best' outcome --

I really believe we can do better

Robert_Paul_Smoke

1/22/2008 1:05:54 AM

The neighbors reached their goal with the amount of signatures needed to stop development at the Washington School area. The City Counsil has to accept it or it goes to a vote.

Why is this meeting being called? Nothing says that you then have to discuss it. The petition signers have won.

Leach, the developer, said that "the dicussion should start by assuming that development will happen." He must be stupid if he doesn't understand that we don't want him or his projects.

susan@skyeclipper.com

1/22/2008 4:11:58 AM

Shut Leach down and send him on his way. Stuffing more high-priced housing into this space is simple gluttony. The district's decision to close the school was ill-advised. Consolidating everyone in one facility shreds the neighborhood fabric. Of was that the goal as part of the indoctrination process?

Let children walk to school. Let parents, at least those sane enough to not both be toiling for "the man" and allowing the school to be their proxy.

As for Leach, perhaps he can find some other community where he can leech off the council and have his way?

meatpieandtatters

1/22/2008 6:25:35 AM

"Let parents, at least those sane enough to not both be toiling for "the man" and allowing the school to be their proxy."

What does this sentence mean?

Pooks

1/22/2008 6:33:54 AM

The aggorance of Leach

"We want a project that can move ahead and has at least a semblance of some support from the public," he said.

A semblance. What an arrogant statment.

Leach, the developer, has said the discussion should start by assuming development will happen.

and again the arrogance.

Leach please go back to where you came from. You have no interest in the betterment of Boulder. You have proved this time and time again.

You are a leach for sure

dave65

1/22/2008 6:37:24 AM

BVSD should be holding onto its real estate assets. It could be priced out of the market if it needs schools in the future. The property should be leased, not sold and developed.

phil@pmimage.com

1/22/2008 7:06:04 AM

The neighbors got the signatures by lying through their teeth to anyone who would listen. Their one and only goal is to keep the land undeveloped so they can have a private park that benefits nobody but themselves. That school building is a not historical or attractive and certainly not worth saving. Move on Boulder, let's see some real greater benefit instead of letting the NIMBY's protect their little corner of paradise gone.

alpnclymber@earthlink.net

1/22/2008 7:39:55 AM

Why shouldn't they have a little corner of paradise?

We lost a beautiful neighborhood school. Wasn't that sacrifice enough for the Washington neighborhood???

Why did these neighborhood schools get closed in the first place?

To cash in on prime real estate. That was the plan back then.

We should keep our eyes open for the same "technique" applied with other City, BHP, and BVSD sites.

As well, put a stop to the large scale pop and scrapes, and, replacing homes with large developments.

For example, there are two such "developments" happening in my neighborhood, west of 8th and Arapahoe.

This will drastically change Arapahoe. Who pays the bill for improving the infrastructure that is needed from these new developments?

And, just south, against the mountain, a huge dig to be replaced by a three story monstrosity.

This one home could house a school.

Have Boulder leaders given the keys to the city to developers?

They call it progress.

Candidate_Brigham

1/22/2008 8:11:06 AM

"Can resubmit a new plan?" Is that english?

grapewacko@netscape.net

1/22/2008 8:24:50 AM

For those who want BVSD to re-open Washington school or put some other sort of educational or community facility in there, you need to stop griping about the city council and get on the case of the BVSD board. You're targeting the wrong people! The city council has absolutely NO CONTROL over the BVSD - they have a say only after BVSD sells the property to a private party (like Mr. Leach). You need to put your effort and passion into challenging the school board, not city council.

LiberalLibertarian

1/22/2008 9:02:45 AM

phil,

"BVSD should be holding onto its real estate assets. It could be priced out of the market if it needs schools in the future. The property should be leased, not sold and developed."

Any wonder why BVSD is always asking for more money...

fbog@hotmail.com

1/22/2008 9:03:13 AM

The method that those signatures were obtained was completely unethical. This petition was sold to the public as a way to give the Washington neighbors a voice in the development, not kill it. At least that's what the petitioners that I talked to were selling.

notworthit

1/22/2008 9:13:36 AM

My favorite quote from the article:

"...Instead, the council could appoint an interim committee to design the process an ad hoc committee would follow. While Leach has said he'd like to have his plan reviewed by April, McHeyser said the process will probably take longer..."

Leach should have been more specific, and said April in 2008. The way council moves, he'll be lucky to see any opinion from the ad hoc committee, designed by the interim committee, by April 2010, regardless of which way things go.

And by then, there will be a new council, and Boulder gets to go through it all over again.

What is there about the word "decision" that just scares hell out of council?

topper

1/22/2008 9:15:25 AM

"The neighbors got the signatures by lying through their teeth to anyone who would listen. "

no they didnt.

"Their one and only goal is to keep the land undeveloped so they can have a private park that benefits nobody but themselves. "

not why I signed it - i dont live near there. nor did many others. perhaps they dont like additional traffic ? perhaps they dont like a newly crowded adjacent school as a result of the closure ?

"That school building is a not historical or attractive and certainly not worth saving. "

And your an expert ?? May I ask, do you stand to profit on this project in any way ?

"Move on Boulder, let's see some real greater benefit instead of letting the NIMBY's protect their little corner of paradise gone."

Turn a blind eye towards taxpayer paid for buildings and let the council/bvsd implement their ideologies to our demise...?

Forget it. And prepare for a fight, because the citizens will speak out on this.

JakPott

1/22/2008 9:38:49 AM

Susan. You need to re-read the beginning of the article before you suggest the developer is "stupid". The petition reverses a zoning change. If the developer is able to go ahead with the project under the current zoning the city council "would be obligated to approve the plan". The petition backed the developer into a corner on a technicality. Leach looks like he'd be able to create the already-approved development under the current zoning. The petition does not kill the development.

mtbdad

1/22/2008 9:41:19 AM

True, BVSD is the main culprit in the sale, but wasnt the City bitching and moaning about a Library in N. Boulder ? Wouldnt they spend 5 millon for something like that ? Wouldnt Washington make a great library ?

And as Smoke pointed out...The city gives away hundreds of thousands to companies that make billions (ibm) and oz architecture (at 50 mill per year)...Is a couple hundred grand going to entice them to 'stay' in Boulder ?? A couple hundred grand could own Washington, and used for real community benefits...

And BVSD needs to be taken to the woodshed to figure out whats going on with a direction the public clearly doesnt want.

JakPott

1/22/2008 9:43:27 AM

Sorry Jak, I have zero financial interest in this project. I'm just a 30+ year citizen who actually supports the concept of a stronger tax base, more shopping/dining opportunities in under-served NoBo, and better utilization of land that will serve the broader community instead of a select few. If they want the land so bad, they can buy it.

alpnclymber@earthlink.net

1/22/2008 10:03:22 AM

Well, as a 30 yr citizen myself, I find the shopping/dining selections to be ample, and believe a school or library serves the public better than additional tax revenue. I would support reduced government instead of continuously needing to increase taxbase. Furthermore, its disturbing a school is closed while Centennial is adding trailers for overflow. Doesnt make sense to me.

JakPott

1/22/2008 10:10:56 AM

Also, im not sure how 7000 sqft of offices with 500k condos 'serves' nobo, but you are entitled to your opinion.

JakPott

1/22/2008 10:12:46 AM

If someone needs an office there is plenty of office space for lease in Boulder

If someone needs restaurant space there is plent of restaurant space for rent in Boulder. Even some "build to suit" restaurant pads available.

If you want a $500k condo there are plenty of condos for sale in Boulder (see the monster on Arapahoe.)

I do not live in that area but I support the people who do.

Make it a library and a Park.

dave65

1/22/2008 10:32:17 AM

The natural outcome of preserving open space, providing affordable housing, providing city services and lessening our impact on the environment is more development / higher density development near the city's infrastructure. While I understand the desires of the neighbors and respect their passionate efforts, we have bigger challenges facing us as a community.

I hope the neighborhood's efforts will result in a better design - one that will lessen the impact of the density without reducing the density, which speaks to the bigger issues. Use this as an opportunity to create a community that will attract people who as new neighbors will enhance their lives.

armada

1/22/2008 10:41:04 AM

jackpott says "I would support reduced government instead of continuously needing to increase taxbase" That's a good one. Did you forget we live in BOULDER CO. Do you really think the same people who voted themselves daycare pay and for a "feel good" intolerance hotline will reduce spending on anything? This city gov looks for new things to waste money and time on.

Bottom line, we must increase tax base. Unfortunately revenue = the city's continued success. Parks and open spaces are great, but they don't pay the bills (and neither do empty old schools that are for sale.)

Moreover, the new gripe "de jour" of most of these posters is with BVSD, not Mr. Leach or the City. How many have attended a school board meeting latley on this issue?

Dogu

1/22/2008 11:02:51 AM

"Bottom line, we must increase tax base"

I disagree, and will continue to lobby against that mindset.

Why cant the city offer current services in perpetuity ? Why do services always need to increase ? Property values and subsequent taxes have increased much faster than inflation, and the city should be flush with money. If not, they are wasting it. The citizens need to take them to task on it, and not roll over and say, well, taxes MUST increase...

lame.

JakPott

1/22/2008 11:44:37 AM

Charge out of towners for access to city funded open space and parkes - then:

Fill up washington school with students instead of spending 2 million on an addition to Centennial.

JakPott

1/22/2008 11:50:08 AM

So, if you dont attend a meeting, you arent allowed to comment ? huh...

Do you attend congressional meetings in washington ? Do you have an opinion as to what congress should do ?

JakPott

1/22/2008 11:52:10 AM

Instead of venting your discontent in here, why don't you all show up at the meeting and make yourselves heard there.

I read and signed that petition, and no one tried to sell me on anything. I signed it because I followed the issue and felt that the neighbors had a valid concern.

As I said, show up at the meeting and put your name to your accusations.

evanesce

1/22/2008 12:12:50 PM

Armada, Since youu believe in density (and all the great things that come with it) so much, perhaps you should consider moving to a real big city, Tokyo.

SoBoPop

1/22/2008 12:26:36 PM

Let's send Leach to Tokyo, along with Mayor McGrath and the whole BVSD Board. It's worth the taxpayers money to do so.

Candidate_Brigham

1/22/2008 12:53:31 PM

Jakpott- I agree with you that in a perfect world cutting spending is the ideal, but I am also a realist. We can't even get conservatives to stop spending, much less the boulder liberal elite.

I am not going to the BVSD meetings because I believe they have the right to sell off the old building if they want. All I am saying is if you disagree, the BVSD forum is the appropriate one, not Leach or the City. Leach is not the problem here and it's wrong to jump on him. If the property is for sale, it's for sale. period. Despite the posters belief to the contrary development is not "evil".(and it is undisputed that all of the naysayers live in something "once" developed.)

Dogu

1/22/2008 12:56:55 PM

Jakpott,

Do you live in that neighborhood? If not, then you aren't really in a position to make such a statement.

evanesce

1/22/2008 1:32:12 PM

Sorry, That post was meant for Dogu.

evanesce

1/22/2008 1:33:49 PM

why? I don't see you calling out to the mat the supporters who DON'T live in the neighborhood. (typical spin)

BVSD owns the property. They can close the school and then sell if they want. If you or anyone has a problem with that, go voice you opinion to them. Not Mr. Leach, who has the right to buy and develop the property so long as he does so with in the rules. As far as I can see, he hasn't broken any laws or ethics. (the city changed the zoning which was reversed using legitimate means by the neighbors.) Now he can try again. This is still America you know.

There is such a thing as property rights.

Evan, do you live in a house/condo or apartment? News flash, a developer built it, and it was propbably opposed at the time. Ergo, you are part of the problem you now complain of.

Dogu

1/22/2008 2:56:51 PM

Note: I have never once bashed Leach for taking advantage of what was being sold.

My beef is primarily with BVSD, secondly, the City for disregarding the opportunity to save a historic structure and utilize if for civic use, after all, the building was paid for by you and me - not BVSD. Furthermore, it seems odd that the City will bitch and moan about changing out a window in an old home - to the point of shutting you down, but seemingly care less when an entire structure is enveloped within funkytown mixed use. The favored position of larger developers in this town while individuals get hammered by fees, regulations and denial, is quite frankly, sickening.

I feel like we were lied to, the school went up for sale, and now its too late.

JakPott

1/22/2008 3:17:04 PM

BVSD owns the property - We the taxpayers own BVSD...dont forget that !

JakPott

1/22/2008 3:17:59 PM

Jakpott.

I agree. We have a voice in BVSD decisions, that means electing school board and opposing decisions. Apologies to you if implied you bashed Leach, but certainly many other who oppose the development have. That's not right.

I also agree re: the homeowners window or garage door gets more attention than the school by historical society. But why? why hasn't the overzealous historical society not designated this building if it is infact a monument? Has anybody asked them?

My point is, this whole campaign by the NIMBY neighbors has been all whining because they lost or because a decision was made (through proper legal methods i.e board votes, council votes etc) and they are pissed about the outcome. I am sorry, but the system worked. IN every battled or oposition someone walks away unhappy.

What's next, action like the Vail fires?

Dogu

1/22/2008 3:34:29 PM

It should become a school for those for whom English is a second language, like bloggers, text-messagers and comment forum posters.

mondoboulder

1/22/2008 3:37:06 PM

For those of you claiming the WSNA is all about NIMBY-ism - did you SEE the map of the City of Boulder and how widespread the signers were? This is City-wide discontent with the direction our former Council set out in colusion with the developers. Why do you want to live in Boulder? Is it because it has been a bastion of sanity with a slow growth policy in place for years? Or do you feel you have a RIGHT to live here and YOUR rights are more important than anybody else's ? Or do you really LIKE the huge ugly block long monstrosities that are overtaking our neighborhoods?

If Council really wants to do the right thing they will simply go back and revoke the original approval of this project. After two years of suggestions from the neighbors to make his plan more palatable, Mr. Leach has repeatedly said he can't change anything or it won't be financially viable. Perhaps if he SPENT less on the project and made it SMALLER - he would MAKE the same percentage. However, his arrogance and belief that there is only one way - HIS WAY - has totally allienated the neighborhood AND a large - widespread - portion of the citizens of Boulder. His own spokesperson , Terri Furman, admitted as much in the Camera article of Jan. 19th. when she said she didn't disagree with the city-wide concerns about projects like these BUT any discussion should NOT concern THIS project. Talk about NIMBY!!!!!!!

Mikki Rainey

mikkirainey

1/22/2008 5:20:54 PM

You NIMBY whiners should accept the fact that something will happen with the property. Given that, why not try to be part of the solution, instead of sitting on your rears taking potshots at any proposal that arises?

KR

1/22/2008 5:27:51 PM

To KR

Try - really try - to read this. The neighbors HAVE understood the property will be developed. The neighbors DID recommend 5 other projects for the site but when they all dropped out because of the flawed MOU we were stuck with Jim Leach who had only received ONE vote. The neighbors HAVE tried to work with Mr. Leach and Wonderland Development. The neighbors have been repeatedly told there was NOTHING that could be altered or changed and our suggestions were useless. Again - please look at the map of signers of the petition. They are from ALL OVER OUR CITY! . This is YOUR backyard too.

Mikki Rainey

mikkirainey

1/22/2008 5:42:02 PM

watching the debate on channel 8 tonight....if everyone is not careful...this project will be designed by committee and the city council...

the word 'decision' seems not to be in the vocabulary tonight...

BHS80

1/22/2008 10:14:28 PM

Here's the thing. The neighbors say they want to work with the developers. OK. The neighbors acknowledge something will be built. OK. The neighbors acknowledge that all the other developers (with there "betterâ ideas) gave up. OK.

What does this say? It says the price tag of the school and the particular type of location/lot make it only economically feasible to build a certain type of development, otherwise no developer could afford to build there. The NIMBY's either: 1) do not understand this OR 2) they understand it perfectly but give the deceptive appearance that they want to simply direct/assist the direction of the development (all along knowing that no developer in his right mind would build a smaller project and lose money).

They want to argue and stall until it's economically unfeasible for a builder/developer to touch the site thus achieving their ultimate goal of no development.